From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marshall v. State

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma
Dec 16, 1953
264 P.2d 770 (Okla. Crim. App. 1953)

Opinion

No. A-11877.

December 16, 1953.

(Syllabus.)

Appeal and Error — Affirmance in Absence of Brief. Where no brief is filed by an appellant, and an examination of the record discloses no fundamental error, the case will be affirmed.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; Leslie Lisle, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, with intent to sell. Affirmed.

O.C. Lassiter, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lewis J. Bicking, County Atty., Tulsa County, Tulsa, for defendant in error.


Here the defendant was charged in the court of common pleas of Tulsa county with the unlawful possession of one-half pint of intoxicating liquor, with the intention to sell.

The possession of such quantity of liquor would not have been unlawful if for the personal use of the accused. Tit. 37 O.S. 1951 § 82[ 37-82]; Thomas v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 404, 106 P.2d 836. On trial the state would have been required to produce competent evidence tending to show such intent. But the accused entered a plea of guilty, and was by the court fined $75, and costs, and sentenced to serve 30 days in the county jail. Appeal has been perfected to this court, but brief in support of the petition in error has not been filed.

We find no error in the record, and the case is affirmed.

JONES and BRETT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marshall v. State

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma
Dec 16, 1953
264 P.2d 770 (Okla. Crim. App. 1953)
Case details for

Marshall v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARSHALL v. STATE

Court:Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma

Date published: Dec 16, 1953

Citations

264 P.2d 770 (Okla. Crim. App. 1953)
97 Okla. Crim. 398

Citing Cases

Treadway v. State

This Court has uniformly held that where no brief is filed and there is no error apparent on the face of the…

LA SANTA v. STATE

No fundamental error being noticeable in the record, the case is subject to summary affirmance. Sisk v.…